Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
stuartcr
Valued Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:33 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby stuartcr » Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:06 am

Kurieuo wrote:
stuartcr wrote:Sorry, I forgot this part.
Who determines the difference between a "justified belief" and a "mere belief?"

Theory of justification (epistemic justification) is a big topic within philosophy.
There are varied positions. Again, look into it and do some reading.
It is a fascinating topic.

stuartcr wrote:"In terms of the biblical belief, 'knowledge of God' and 'belief' thereof could be interchangeable." Why are they interchangeable?

I understand that Thomas "believed", but it took a revelation. Why is the revelation necessary in order to believe in God? This, to me, is not knowledge, but a belief based upon a revelation.

Because "Biblical belief" normally means belief that is based upon evidence -- and belief based upon justification gets upgraded from merely a belief to knowledge.


I was actually asking you to tell me who you believe determines the difference.

Again, how is this justification determined?

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18251
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby RickD » Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:51 am

stuartcr wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
stuartcr wrote:Sorry, I forgot this part.
Who determines the difference between a "justified belief" and a "mere belief?"

Theory of justification (epistemic justification) is a big topic within philosophy.
There are varied positions. Again, look into it and do some reading.
It is a fascinating topic.

stuartcr wrote:"In terms of the biblical belief, 'knowledge of God' and 'belief' thereof could be interchangeable." Why are they interchangeable?

I understand that Thomas "believed", but it took a revelation. Why is the revelation necessary in order to believe in God? This, to me, is not knowledge, but a belief based upon a revelation.

Because "Biblical belief" normally means belief that is based upon evidence -- and belief based upon justification gets upgraded from merely a belief to knowledge.


I was actually asking you to tell me who you believe determines the difference.

Again, how is this justification determined?

The meaning of the word for trust, pisteuō, determines the difference.

Look at belief/trust in John 3:16:
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His [a]only begotten Son, that whoever believes (pisteuō) in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Does that help?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

stuartcr
Valued Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:33 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby stuartcr » Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:23 am

Not at all. What happens when one person's pisteuō differs from anothers? How is justification determined??

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18251
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby RickD » Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:28 am

stuartcr wrote:Not at all. What happens when one person's pisteuō differs from anothers? How is justification determined??

I'm not sure I'm following you. Pisteuō has a meaning. It's trust based on evidence or reason. Not blind trust.

Otherwise,

I'm not getting what your point is.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

stuartcr
Valued Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:33 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby stuartcr » Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:46 am

RickD wrote:
stuartcr wrote:Not at all. What happens when one person's pisteuō differs from anothers? How is justification determined??

I'm not sure I'm following you. Pisteuō has a meaning. It's trust based on evidence or reason. Not blind trust.

Otherwise,

I'm not getting what your point is.


Yes, trust based on evidence or reason. What happens when 2 people interpret the same evidence or reason differently? My belief in God is different than yours, but we both base our belief on different evidence or reason and we both trust in our evidence and reasoning.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18251
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby RickD » Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:52 am

stuartcr wrote:
RickD wrote:
stuartcr wrote:Not at all. What happens when one person's pisteuō differs from anothers? How is justification determined??

I'm not sure I'm following you. Pisteuō has a meaning. It's trust based on evidence or reason. Not blind trust.

Otherwise,

I'm not getting what your point is.


Yes, trust based on evidence or reason. What happens when 2 people interpret the same evidence or reason differently? My belief in God is different than yours, but we both base our belief on different evidence or reason and we both trust in our evidence and reasoning.

Then using that same reason, at least one of us is wrong. But everyone has the same evidence to go by. Maybe one of us isn't seeing all the evidence. Maybe we both see the same evidence, but one of us doesn't understand it.

Of course, I'd submit that if your belief in God isn't along the lines of this, then your belief is wrong.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

stuartcr
Valued Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:33 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby stuartcr » Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:07 am

RickD wrote:
stuartcr wrote:
RickD wrote:
stuartcr wrote:Not at all. What happens when one person's pisteuō differs from anothers? How is justification determined??

I'm not sure I'm following you. Pisteuō has a meaning. It's trust based on evidence or reason. Not blind trust.

Otherwise,

I'm not getting what your point is.


Yes, trust based on evidence or reason. What happens when 2 people interpret the same evidence or reason differently? My belief in God is different than yours, but we both base our belief on different evidence or reason and we both trust in our evidence and reasoning.

Then using that same reason, at least one of us is wrong. But everyone has the same evidence to go by. Maybe one of us isn't seeing all the evidence. Maybe we both see the same evidence, but one of us doesn't understand it.

Of course, I'd submit that if your belief in God isn't along the lines of this, then your belief is wrong.


I will avoid the obvious, by not asking for proof that I am wrong. I do not believe that God presents the same evidence to each of us.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18251
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby RickD » Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:31 am

stuartcr wrote:
RickD wrote:
stuartcr wrote:
RickD wrote:
stuartcr wrote:Not at all. What happens when one person's pisteuō differs from anothers? How is justification determined??

I'm not sure I'm following you. Pisteuō has a meaning. It's trust based on evidence or reason. Not blind trust.

Otherwise,

I'm not getting what your point is.


Yes, trust based on evidence or reason. What happens when 2 people interpret the same evidence or reason differently? My belief in God is different than yours, but we both base our belief on different evidence or reason and we both trust in our evidence and reasoning.

Then using that same reason, at least one of us is wrong. But everyone has the same evidence to go by. Maybe one of us isn't seeing all the evidence. Maybe we both see the same evidence, but one of us doesn't understand it.

Of course, I'd submit that if your belief in God isn't along the lines of this, then your belief is wrong.


I will avoid the obvious, by not asking for proof that I am wrong. I do not believe that God presents the same evidence to each of us.

Anyone in his right mind, can know that God exists from reason. It's the same for everyone. It's really simple logic once you get the argument. If I can understand it, anyone can.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

stuartcr
Valued Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:33 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby stuartcr » Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:40 am

Would you mind explaining to me in lay terms why this evidence is the same for everyone?

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18251
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby RickD » Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:14 pm

stuartcr wrote:Would you mind explaining to me in lay terms why this evidence is the same for everyone?

This link shows it in argument form from logic.
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8907
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby Kurieuo » Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:46 pm

stuartcr wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
stuartcr wrote:Sorry, I forgot this part.
Who determines the difference between a "justified belief" and a "mere belief?"

Theory of justification (epistemic justification) is a big topic within philosophy.
There are varied positions. Again, look into it and do some reading.
It is a fascinating topic.

stuartcr wrote:"In terms of the biblical belief, 'knowledge of God' and 'belief' thereof could be interchangeable." Why are they interchangeable?

I understand that Thomas "believed", but it took a revelation. Why is the revelation necessary in order to believe in God? This, to me, is not knowledge, but a belief based upon a revelation.

Because "Biblical belief" normally means belief that is based upon evidence -- and belief based upon justification gets upgraded from merely a belief to knowledge.


I was actually asking you to tell me who you believe determines the difference.

Again, how is this justification determined?

Don't understand what you're asking.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

Morny
Valued Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:05 pm
Christian: No

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby Morny » Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:23 am

Kurieuo wrote:
Morny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Morny wrote:No over-simplification. Science uses MN, not PN. Show the use of PN for establishing any finding in any field of science.

Perhaps you ought to take your smelly fish to our discussion had around two years ago. We can continue your PN/MN distraction there, eh?

You might want to cool down.

In this thread, you are the one who brought up PN relating to science. I questioned that and asked for one example. In the topic you referenced from 2 years ago, I (and PerciFlage) asked basically the same important and relevant question multiple times, without you addressing the question. Show one use of PN for establishing or inhibiting any finding in any field of science.

Kurieuo wrote:
Morny wrote:Sure, but after we resolve your main confusion on one of science's foundational principles.

Typical Atheist avoidance. Refusing to place nothing on the table. You respect my questions, I'll respect yours.
OR, you can take a hike Morny as I'm not interested in responding to uncharitable stupidity or arrogance dripping with scientific pretence.

Not sure to whom you're addressing - I'm not an atheist.

In any event, I already had a draft to your things-that-you-believe question. But you first placed PN and science together on the "table" in this topic. And with my being stupid and all, adding another item on the "table" to think about would be too complicated for me.

I don't believe anyone is truly Atheist, so you can call yourself Agnostic, Atheist-Agnostic, weak Atheist, or unsure...
Your "Pastafarianism" and higher than thou scientific pretence insults my intelligence and is therefore extremely off-putting.
That, Morny, is uncharitable stupidity. If that's you being stupid, then that's a connection you've made.

Treat me and my beliefs as stupid and with disdain and disrespect, and I'll do the same.
ABL and others may take it (and I'm not really just talking about you here), but I will not.
That's all I want to say really.

Now you're pouting? There's no pouting in baseball or science.

Methodological Naturalism along with the Scientific Method is by far the most reliable tool we have for understanding the natural world. Science textbooks are replete with examples, and devoid of counterexamples.

If you or Plantinga have something better for correcting or adding to science textbooks, give one example, just one. Otherwise, hand-waving only provides evidence in the minds of those doing the hand-waving.

Morny
Valued Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:05 pm
Christian: No

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby Morny » Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:25 am

RickD wrote:
stuartcr wrote:Would you mind explaining to me in lay terms why this evidence is the same for everyone?

This link shows it in argument form from logic.
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm

For every one of your evidential proofs, websites like the following exist:
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/aquinas.html.

And we're right back to square one trying to effectively answer Stuart's question.

If only we had a simple method, let's make up the name "The S Method", for resolving not all, but many questions, for which rational Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Pastafarians, agnostics, and atheists should all agree. Also important is that "The S Method" should also let us know when resolving a question with evidence is not possible. "The S Method" could then avoid many endless disputes, e.g., arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8907
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby Kurieuo » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:14 am

Morny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Morny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Morny wrote:No over-simplification. Science uses MN, not PN. Show the use of PN for establishing any finding in any field of science.

Perhaps you ought to take your smelly fish to our discussion had around two years ago. We can continue your PN/MN distraction there, eh?

You might want to cool down.

In this thread, you are the one who brought up PN relating to science. I questioned that and asked for one example. In the topic you referenced from 2 years ago, I (and PerciFlage) asked basically the same important and relevant question multiple times, without you addressing the question. Show one use of PN for establishing or inhibiting any finding in any field of science.

Kurieuo wrote:
Morny wrote:Sure, but after we resolve your main confusion on one of science's foundational principles.

Typical Atheist avoidance. Refusing to place nothing on the table. You respect my questions, I'll respect yours.
OR, you can take a hike Morny as I'm not interested in responding to uncharitable stupidity or arrogance dripping with scientific pretence.

Not sure to whom you're addressing - I'm not an atheist.

In any event, I already had a draft to your things-that-you-believe question. But you first placed PN and science together on the "table" in this topic. And with my being stupid and all, adding another item on the "table" to think about would be too complicated for me.

I don't believe anyone is truly Atheist, so you can call yourself Agnostic, Atheist-Agnostic, weak Atheist, or unsure...
Your "Pastafarianism" and higher than thou scientific pretence insults my intelligence and is therefore extremely off-putting.
That, Morny, is uncharitable stupidity. If that's you being stupid, then that's a connection you've made.

Treat me and my beliefs as stupid and with disdain and disrespect, and I'll do the same.
ABL and others may take it (and I'm not really just talking about you here), but I will not.
That's all I want to say really.

Now you're pouting? There's no pouting in baseball or science.

Methodological Naturalism along with the Scientific Method is by far the most reliable tool we have for understanding the natural world. Science textbooks are replete with examples, and devoid of counterexamples.

If you or Plantinga have something better for correcting or adding to science textbooks, give one example, just one. Otherwise, hand-waving only provides evidence in the minds of those doing the hand-waving.

Pointless. I'm not sure you get it.
And, as for your points, pointless too.
You may as well be talking to my hand. y=;
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

jonesm
Acquainted Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:18 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby jonesm » Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:15 am

You were doing well explaining the EAAN
I dare say that you still do not get Plantinga's argument.

Palntinga neither says one way or another whether our cognitive faculties are reliable??
It also doesn't matter that you or I think we're correct in our opinion whether or not we have beliefs correct or not.

If you lay out the argument in formal logic, then that would be better I think.
Then you can say which premise you disagree with, and why... rather than talking off-the-cuff if you will.
It'd certainly make whatever your argument is more clear. Because right now, I'm scratching my head [about your refutation, if one is being offered or merely side commentary?].


Dear Kurieuo
Sorry about the delay; had to spend my time on developing a strategy for delivering social care in the prison system! I have had a go at the key premises in the EAAN and I do not think there are that many.
1. Cognitive faculties are reliable at forming true beliefs
2. The theory of evolution is correct
3. Belief forming faculties are selected through the evolutionary process on the basis of their survival value not their success at truthfulness
The premise that I queried in my post is 1., that our cognitive faculties are reliable at forming true beliefs. This flies in the face of the number of beliefs that turn out to be wrong.
Regards jonesm


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests